| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess the visual of Pathfinder Hobgoblins that got stuck in my head is from Classic Monsters Revisited. I can't find the pictures in that book online, but IMO they look a lot more like this new picture (only much bulkier) than they do like some of the more recent hobgoblin pics I've found (which I agree look more like orcs).
For me, the visuals I have in mind are the images in the advanced race guide. page 120, 121. They look like a different race entirely from the new pictures.
I WILL agree the Classic Monsters Revisited images have more in common with the new ones, but they still deviate quite a bit even then.
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
<_< I liked that hobgoblin art. I can't be only one who likes it?
I mean, old art for hobgoblins look like gray colored orcs really.
Thanks CorvusMask. Glad you like the new art for a female Hobgoblin archer. (BTW - Not all archers have huge shoulders and arms. )
The old art for the hobgoblin is a perfectly good piece of art. But when it becomes difficult to distinguish one monster from another, it becomes a problem that needs addressing. That's precisely why the Hobgoblin required changes for the new version of Pathfinder.
The Hobgoblin was never really defined, other than they are a military - minded / more organised goblinoid race.
For the new version of Pathfinder it made sense that if they are a goblinoid race, then they should bear some resemblance to the Pathfinder goblin.
We're creating a visually recognisable world for Pathfinder which will involve some new takes on "classic" monsters.
It's been one of the most exciting projects I've worked on.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly making the goblinoids look related to each other is a fantastic move. I’m downright horrified by what bugbears will look like if they get some more goblification.
In my homebrew I have them looking like the Wendigos from Until Dawn, so I’m super excited to see what Wayne comes up with :3
| 19 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks DM & Rysky.
One of the things I wanted to introduce to the non-human creatures in Pathfinder was a distinct non - human quality. This concept was applied to the "demi - human" ancestries also.
In many cases, creatures needed to be more than just a human with a slightly larger teeth or different coloured skin. Their body proportions and skeletal structure needed to be wildly different too in order to better convey that monster - quality.
In the instance of Goblinoid creatures we started to take into account their culture and what their items, weapons and armour would look like if they were made by a monster. If these creatures were making things themselves, how would they differ from human - made, elven - made or even orc - made items?
A lot of the new art will reflect a great diversity of Golarion cultures.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
That’s really unfortunate. I, on the other hand, really like WAR’s art style and one thing that I’m excited about is that he’s the sole artist for the PF2 CRB.Terrible art for the Hobgoblin.I also really really don't like WAR's style of drawing, and one of the reasons I don't like getting Paizo hardcovers is his art everywhere.
Regardless of personal tastes, Reynolds IS pathfinder.
And a lead artist with a personal style unifying the art is a great idea.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I absolutely hated the broad shouldered, unreal lumbering look of the PF1 hobgoblins - this version looks awesome. Well done Wayne - your illustration is a feral, insidious and vile looking hobgoblin, like a larger, agile and formidable cousin of goblins.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2) Two options are Wish and Miracle without the cost. If Universalist Wizard’s capstone was removing the cost from any Wish spell used to duplicate another spell, that would have been really good. But, you still get to pick a 20th level capstone on top of that.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
That’s really unfortunate. I, on the other hand, really like WAR’s art style and one thing that I’m excited about is that he’s the sole artist for the PF2 CRB.Terrible art for the Hobgoblin.I also really really don't like WAR's style of drawing, and one of the reasons I don't like getting Paizo hardcovers is his art everywhere.Regardless of personal tastes, Reynolds IS pathfinder.
And a lead artist with a personal style unifying the art is a great idea.
I completely agree.
And I really like that more care is being put into distinguishing the other humanoids from humans in distinctive ways. The “they basically look like humans who have had a little plastic surgery” approach is something that’s always bugged me.
(I also really appreciate Reynolds chipping in with some insights into the artistic redesigning process. Very interesting and enlightening!)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
And any resemblence to Paizo goblins is automaticly bad because their desing has always been stupid
I hope you can find a way to live with your art gripes if you plan to play the new edition, because you will have a lot of them if you don't like Paizo's goblins art. Art can not please every single taste, and it is clear that it is your personal preference the one which will be sacrificed, because Paizo clearly likes their iconic goblins and they feel most of us do too
|
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
That hobgoblin art is AWFUL, not like just that ain't a hobgoblin, but the desing is just bad. That figure could never even pull back a bow, not ment for hunting let alone combat anyway. And any resemblence to Paizo goblins is automaticly bad because their desing has always been stupid. That part is preference. But look at that 'armor' no just no, WH40k has more reasonable looking things. Shield would fall into that things waist in about 3 seconds of walking. That art has not one redeeming quality about it and I feel sad that money was spent on it.
*snip*
In matters of taste there can be no debate.
However, in matters of criticism, there are effective ways to do that without being unnecessarily insulting. Insulting not just the artist, but people who like the art as well. The quoted above is the worst kind of criticism, and I hope in future you consider your words more carefully.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I hate the goblins because they aren't goblins. They are little green things that got slapped with the name goblin. Paizo, ya know if you wanna create a new thing, how about you give it a new name, when it has nothing to do with the original?
… I don't understand. "Little green things" is the common perception of what goblins are, not just some Paizo idea. Go do a Google image search for goblin. The first six images are little green things.
Sure, you can focus on what they used to be in folklore, or go with the Hobbit movies, or whatever. But it seems weird to say that Pathfinder's goblins aren't very goblin-y.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just noticed it is the female of the species!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just noticed it is the female of the species!
Yeah, despite the clear label in the corner, I only noticed when Mr. Reynolds outright told us. Indeed, it could be said that I did not notice at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Terrible art for the Hobgoblin.This. I mean they made superb design for Monster Codex and Ironfang Invasion and now this crappy medium sized goblin. I didn't mind goblins in core, not really, until now.
I also really really don't like WAR's style of drawing, and one of the reasons I don't like getting Paizo hardcovers is his art everywhere.
I absolutely HATE the ironfang/monster codex design. They are just color swapped orcs essentially (or slightly less attractive drow, or slightly different ghouls). All of these monsters should be far more distinctive. My go to imagining of hobgoblins is the ARG, where they keep there goblinoid appearance, but just look overall beefier.
I am not a huge fan necessarily of the new art, but some of that I think is style. I still like it way better than the almost orcs of Ironfang.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I used to mildly dislike Wayne Reynold's art. The playtest sketches have shifted that opinion in a strongly negative direction.
Yeah he's gotten....sharper, over the years? I don't really know how to express it. Pointier? A lot more hard edges, straight lines, and points on the new guys as compared to other pieces of art.
Then again they're sketches, so who knows how the end product will be.
The hobgoblin is still horrible though.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The ancestry and (minor background) reveals are definitely souring me on the concept more and more. I started off positive on it, thought the ancestry/background split sounded like a great thing for the game. And liked the idea of ancestry mattering throughout your career as an adventurer instead of just being a relevant in the early levels.
However I see three main flaws in the execution:
1) Ancestry still has too many cultural aspects.
2) Background is doing double duty and should be split -- Upbringing & Background. I feel the designers have gotten too enticed by the ABC mnemonic. Maybe because there's a 'default' upbringing for many ancestries, or maybe because its in the name of simplification, but it seems like its straining their system in ways that cause players angst. As I see it Upbringing should be the cultural portion of an ancestry ( weapon proficiency, languages, skill boosts/knowledge boosts, inter-ancestry hatreds). Minimally we'd need Upringing for each Ancestry in the CRB, with maybe a few extra for (Urban vs Rural vs Feral).
3) Rather than making ancestry choice grow over time, its made ancestry matter less at level 1 and roughly equal PF1 by level 20. So they've acheived the goal of making ancestry progress, but not the goal of making ancestry matter more.
If you did the Ancestry, Upbringing, Background, Class (not trying to find a mnemonic) Dwarf Ancestry +Dwarf Upbringing should be very close to a PF1 dwarf, still maybe with ~2 race traits missing, but having one ancestry feat to spend.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We haven't seen much of anything about backgrounds yet. As I understand them, they represent the strongest influence of your upbringing. I think that being adopted would have a stronger influence than whether your dwarf parents taught you blacksmithing or brewing.
For most adopted people I know, it was basically irrelevant to their life. Everything else mattered more. Only Hollywood makes adoption into this huge crazy deal.
Bear in mind, being raised in a different culture or with a ton of exposure to a different culture doesn't even have to mean you were adopted. Maybe you grew up in Elfland because your parents are diplomats posted there as ambassadors. Maybe you live in the town right at the border of Elfland and there's friendly relations, so it's fairly regular for elves to spend lots of time in Humantown and for humans to spend lots of time in Elfland.
TLDR: There's lots of reasons for this sort of thing to not have to consume your background slot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For most adopted people I know, it was basically irrelevant to their life. Everything else mattered more. Only Hollywood makes adoption into this huge crazy deal.
Bear in mind, being raised in a different culture or with a ton of exposure to a different culture doesn't even have to mean you were adopted. Maybe you grew up in Elfland because your parents are diplomats posted there as ambassadors. Maybe you live in the town right at the border of Elfland and there's friendly relations, so it's fairly regular for elves to spend lots of time in Humantown and for humans to spend lots of time in Elfland.
TLDR: There's lots of reasons for this sort of thing to not have to consume your background slot.
This is a really good point. I know I would much rather have a global ancestry archetype that lets you choose another ancestry to "identify with" for the purposes of gaining that ancestry's non-heritage feats, while still allowing you to take heritage feats from your own birth ancestry. Leave it out of backgrounds altogether, and make the archetype completely agnostic as to why, to cover cases of both adoption and expatriation.
Of course, this kind of needs there to be at least 2 ancestry feats at level 1 to be likely to have more than a cosmetic effect right away.
"my father was a diplomat in an elven kingdom" sounds like an awesome background, so not sure what is wrong with that
I would be down for (almost) *every* ancestry grants an ancestry feat. Barring a background like "raised by wolves" you must have grown up around someone and as a result picked up something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"my father was a diplomat in an elven kingdom" sounds like an awesome background, so not sure what is wrong with that
I think "my father was a diplomat" could be a great aspect of a background, but I think it falls just short of being a great background in and of itself. For my money, most great backgrounds start with where you're from, but mostly focus on who you are and what you do, rather than what your parents do/did. That's why I think it fits better as an ancestry archetype, personally. But if they insist on making "adopted" a background, then they absolutely need to have something like this one as an alternate source for doing (effectively) the same thing. Seems cleaner to me, though, to have one go-to for all combinations (archetype) than have n different backgrounds to cover all of the different reasons why someone might identify strongly with a culture other than their birth one.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the note about the Elf Fighter armor 'Not gender-specific Armor'.
The non-gender specific armor is a WIN for me, even more so than spindly hobgoblin archers.
I thought that was great too. Please phase out boob-plates. They're silly. What does armor for a woman look like? Much like armor for a man.
Also I rather like the spindly hob. Certainly different than the ones we've seen previously, but I think it works well. With goblins as psycho toddlers, hobgoblins are more like lanky teenagers. Although putting a bit more muscle on him might be good. I'm curious if bugbears have a new look done or not. I'm also curious about the new look for Pathfinder orcs that's teased in here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The old art for the hobgoblin is a perfectly good piece of art. But when it becomes difficult to distinguish one monster from another, it becomes a problem that needs addressing. That's precisely why the Hobgoblin required changes for the new version of Pathfinder.
The Hobgoblin was never really defined, other than they are a military - minded / more organised goblinoid race.
For the new version of Pathfinder it made sense that if they are a goblinoid race, then they should bear some resemblance to the Pathfinder goblin.
We're creating a visually recognisable world for Pathfinder which will involve some new takes on "classic" monsters.
It's been one of the most exciting projects I've worked on.
I do like that you're setting a more consistent and distinct look for things. It seems like Paizo was doing that from the beginning of Pathfinder and had great success with goblins but also made their mark with ogres, gnomes and others. But ultimately it seems like the effort kind of fizzled out before finishing. So it's good to hear that it's a more systematic approach this time. I'm sure you've got some more surprises in store.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I thought that was great too. Please phase out boob-plates. They're silly. What does armor for a woman look like? Much like armor for a man.
I am wholly in agreement, I wouldn't mind editorial standards of "no boob plate" but the timelines for art for these books sometimes make it unreasonable to get something fixed if an artist doesn't follow the guidelines.
When I see "boob plate" in fantasy art the only way it makes sense to me is "this fashion conscious person will never be engaging in any actual combat, but wants to look like she is willing to throw down (even though she absolutely is not)."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
the interview had a lot of interesting info, admittably much of which was stuff we could infer from past news items. I still remain concerned that ancestries are a bit too bare bone. I like the idea of ancestry feats, but not if it means just taking all the basic things we get in a race and spreading them over 20 levels. At the baseline, it should contain all the basic "biology" info, with cultural things being stuff players choose later on.
still not sure what to think of the "bag of feats" approach to archetypes...I would need to see an example, but if an archetype is just a set of feats, I don't see a reason not to just make those feats general and available to anyone
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While the specific idea of the gunslinger as the bold, mysterious, and resourceful loner that we see in a lot of fiction might merit a class unto itself, it would be definitely better to print a "you can use guns" archetype that can be bolted on to any class rather than the pile of "this one uses guns" archetypes we got in PF1 (Spellslinger, Holy Gun, Picaroon, Steel Hound, etc.)
Agreed. But just as they're trying to simplify races (because somehow +2 to a couple of skills and not dying for 1 round when you fall below 0 HP once per day are very complex ideas and players can only handle one or the other), adding a new "option" for characters that they have to bolt onto their character is yet another addition of complexity. If they want it simple, let archetypes be an optional thing. And the only way they can be optional is if they introduce disadvantages in addition to the bonuses they grant, or if they replace core elements of a class (whether it be general feats or class feats or what have you).
I'd really prefer they find a new word for bolt on and replace nothing "archetypes" (4e called these themes. If we're getting the mechanic might as well get the same as well. They were also a late in life addition so most Pathfinder players will have probably stopped playing 4e if they disliked 4e before themes came out so they won't necessarily make the connection). Keep archetypes for when they realise they need a way to replace core mechanics (which is what 3.5e eventually discovered and what Pathfinder immediately discovered).
That said, there is a lot to like about what was in the interview. Particularly the part about spellcasters having the ability to replace other classes being toned down or removed. I especially like aasimars and tieflings being ancestry feats rather than ancestries. We can now have halfling aasimars feel like halflings.
I also really like 10th level spells. If Mythic is being incorporated into levels 19-20 and leaving levels 1-18 without mythic than that would be great. Our games never go up to level 19 (I think the highest we've reached is level 17-18). So we're not losing anything by having level 19+ being silly. But if they manage to do it well than it could be a lot of fun to have our characters become these mythic demigods. The game should change how it feels as you level up.
The limitation of heritage feats at level 1 makes sense. They're meant to represent a physical part of your character from what we've heard. It makes no sense for you to develop a new physical ability at level 15. But the biggest problem people have with that is again tied to how stripped down ancestries at level 1 are. Even allowing 2 ancestry feats at level 1 would be much, much better at this point.
As for the hobgoblin: apparently I have no strong opinion. I thought they had orange faces the hobgoblin here. Given I've gone the past 9 years without even knowing what hobgoblins look like, I don't think I can have a strong opinion on what the new one looks like.
Maybe you live in the town right at the border of Elfland and there's friendly relations, so it's fairly regular for elves to spend lots of time in Humantown and for humans to spend lots of time in Elfland.
TLDR: There's lots of reasons for this sort of thing to not have to consume your background slot.
Agreed. I was really, really hoping that background = culture, ancestry = physical. Blowing an entire feat on flavour isn't ideal IMO.
Also I'm really glad to see no more boob platemail.
I'd really prefer they find a new word for bolt on and replace nothing "archetypes" (4e called these themes. If we're getting the mechanic might as well get the same as well. They were also a late in life addition so most Pathfinder players will have probably stopped playing 4e if they disliked 4e before themes came out so they won't necessarily make the connection). Keep archetypes for when they realise they need a way to replace core mechanics (which is what 3.5e eventually discovered and what Pathfinder immediately discovered).
Maybe they can add on to their A(ncestry), B(ackground) and C(lass) paradigm with a D: D(irection). This is the direction you are going to take your character. This can encompass something like your bolt-on path, or maybe also a choice built into the class like whether to be an Evoker or Enchanter wizard. It's what makes you different from another character of your race and class, and gives something for you to grow into over time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for the hobgoblin: apparently I have no strong opinion. I thought they had orange faces the hobgoblin here. Given I've gone the past 9 years without even knowing what hobgoblins look like, I don't think I can have a strong opinion on what the new one looks like.
That's the art for Oni (Ogre Mage) by the way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the idea of archetypes altering base features is pretty solid. as long as they have enough other things to make them still seem like the class. If not might as well make it a new class.But that starts a slippery slope, I used to be in favour of tons of classes, but at a point, it bleeds into construct your own class territory (which is fine).
I just don't believe in slippery slope arguments I'm as sure footed as a mountain goat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there is a lot of expectation and baggage with representation and illustration of goblins and goblinoids - Tolkien's Hobbit Great Goblin/goblins, the goblins of Moria, Mordor Orcs and Uruk Hai of Saruman, with some confusion in my mind where one ends and the other begins. Then add the Peter Jackson movies and throw in a blender. Or any of the various Tolkien calendars from the 80's onwards, some with awesome phsiological breakdowns of the types.
For PF2, I'm also keen to see orcs and bugbears continue the trajectory we've seen from goblin---->hobgoblin. A super-feral wild bugbear would be awesome. Shying away from pignose and tusk orcs would be radical and appreciated, but I can see removing the tusks as a bridge too far.
I always found PF trolls weird looking, but then examined my own fondness for AdnD1e trolls and realised they were really really weird looking, and at least PF trolls were more bestial, if boar-head-like.